do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-288/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ALOve — Earlier international figurative mark LOVe — Relative ground for refusal — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, consultancy, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade event, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003702.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/37






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve)
(Case T-288/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ALOve - Earlier international figurative mark LOVe - Relative ground for refusal - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cartier International AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 March 2021 (Case R 2679/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-681/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — OC v EEAS (Liability — Civil service — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Reporting of irregularities — Inspection report — Transfer — Acts adversely affecting an official — Conduct not entailing a decision — Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Protection of whistleblowers — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to privacy — Protection of personal data)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, data protection, indemnification, personal data, posted worker, protection of privacy, reassignment, staff regulations (EU), third country, whistleblowing








C_2022340EN.01003201.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/32






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — OC v EEAS
(Case T-681/20) (1)

(Liability - Civil service - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Reporting of irregularities - Inspection report - Transfer - Acts adversely affecting an official - Conduct not entailing a decision - Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Protection of whistleblowers - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to privacy - Protection of personal data)
(2022/C 340/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage that she allegedly suffered as a result of acts or conduct of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 to OC for the non-material damage suffered;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by OC.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Case T-388/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Members of the European Parliament — Refusal of the President of the Parliament to recognise the status of Member of the European Parliament and the associated rights of elected candidates — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European election, Member of the European Parliament, Spain, objections to an election result, parliamentary immunity








C_2022340EN.01002702.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/27






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament
(Case T-388/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Members of the European Parliament - Refusal of the President of the Parliament to recognise the status of Member of the European Parliament and the associated rights of elected candidates - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 340/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye, S. Bekaert, lawyers, and by B. Emmerson QC)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lukácsi and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of, first, the Instruction of 29 May 2019 of the President of the European Parliament refusing them access to the special welcome and assistance service offered to incoming Members of the European Parliament and the grant of temporary accreditation and, second, the refusal of the President of the Parliament to recognise their status as Members of the European Parliament, contained in the letter of 27 June 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including the costs in Cases T-388/19 R, C-646/19 P(R) and T-388/19 R-RENV;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case T-246/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Aerospinning Master Franchising v EUIPO — Mad Dogg Athletics (SPINNING) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SPINNING — Trade mark which has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered — Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relevant public)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, physical education, recording medium, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003001.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/30






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Aerospinning Master Franchising v EUIPO — Mad Dogg Athletics (SPINNING)
(Case T-246/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Trade mark which has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant public)
(2022/C 340/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 February 2020 (Case R 369/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between itself and the intervener.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising s. r. o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case T-478/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark BALLON D’OR — Genuine use of the mark — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use — Assessment of the evidence — Classification of the services)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, education, paper, paperboard, precious metal, registered trade mark, sporting event, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003901.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/39






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)
(Case T-478/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BALLON D’OR - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Assessment of the evidence - Classification of the services)
(2022/C 340/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Chylińska and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and T. Dolde and V. Pati, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4) in so far as it upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to revoke the mark in respect of the following services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended: ‘entertainment’, ‘television entertainment’ and ‘organisation of competitions (entertainment)’;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Case C-453/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2022 — Michael Schütte v Finanzamt Brilon
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interest, invoicing, subcontracting, tax authorities, tax rebate








C_2022368EN.01001701.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2022 — Michael Schütte v Finanzamt Brilon
(Case C-453/22)
(2022/C 368/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Michael Schütte

Defendant: Finanzamt Brilon

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, do the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC (1)– in particular the principle of fiscal neutrality and the principle of effectiveness — require that the applicant has a right to claim reimbursement of the value added tax overpaid by him or her to his or her upstream suppliers, including interest, directly from the tax authorities, even though there is still a possibility that the upstream suppliers will at a later point in time take action against the tax authorities on the basis of a correction of the invoices, and the tax authorities may then — possibly — no longer have a right of recourse against the applicant, with the result that there is a risk that those authorities will have to reimburse the same value added tax twice?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-431/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Kiinnitysluottopankki v SRB
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), principle of proportionality








C_2022359EN.01008101.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/81






Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Kiinnitysluottopankki v SRB
(Case T-431/22)
(2022/C 359/99)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nordea Kiinnitysluottopankki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the SRB of 11 April 2022, document no. SRB/ES/2022/18, including Annexes I, II and III, as far as it concerns the ex-ante contribution of the applicant; and










—


order the SRB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014, (1) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by taking a dynamic approach to determine the target level for the ex-ante contributions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of the target level by the SRB in the contested decision suffers from manifest errors of assessment regarding the expected growth rate for covered deposits and the evaluation of the current business cycle.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB has infringed Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not applying the binding 12,5 % cap to the target level when determining the annual target level.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are in breach of the principle of risk-oriented setting of the contributions and the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if the target level is to be determined in a dynamic way and the cap according to Article 70(2) of that Regulation is not to be applied, as would be the case if the contested decision is upheld.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Case T-430/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Bank v SRB
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank resolution, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial risk, financial solvency, financing plan, principle of proportionality








C_2022340EN.01005201.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/52






Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Bank v SRB
(Case T-430/22)
(2022/C 340/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nordea Bank Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the SRB of 11 April 2022, document no. SRB/ES/2022/18, including Annexes I, II and III, as far as it concerns the ex-ante contribution of the applicant;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by taking a dynamic approach to determine the target level for the ex-ante contributions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of the target level by the SRB in the contested decision suffers from manifest errors of assessment regarding the expected growth rate for covered deposits and the evaluation of the current business cycle.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB has infringed Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not applying the binding 12,5 % cap to the target level when determining the annual target level.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are in breach of the principle of risk-oriented setting of the contributions and the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if the target level is to be determined in a dynamic way and the cap according to Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not to be applied, as would be the case if the contested decision is upheld.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Case T-31/22: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice of the European Union (Public procurement of services — Withdrawal of the contested decisions — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, official language, public procurement, services contract, tendering, translation








C_2022340EN.01004301.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/43






Order of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-31/22) (1)

(Public procurement of services - Withdrawal of the contested decisions - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 340/60)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Ana Teresa Perez Lopes Pargana Calado (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Marques Matias, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action brought, in essence, under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union rejecting her applications to participate in the public procurement procedure for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into Portuguese.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The Court shall bear its own costs and those incurred by Ms Ana Teresa Perez Lopes Pargana Calado.






(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.
Case T-664/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — YF v EFCA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Termination of contract — Incompetence — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of good administration)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: full-time employment, professional qualifications, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_2022340EN.01003902.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/39






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — YF v EFCA
(Case T-664/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Termination of contract - Incompetence - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of good administration)
(2022/C 340/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: YF (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Fisheries Control Agency (represented by: S. Steele, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) of 18 February 2021 by which his contract of indefinite duration was terminated.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders YF to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Case T-428/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM)
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical research, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, research and development, trade-mark law








C_2022326EN.01002501.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/25






Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM)
(Case T-428/22)
(2022/C 326/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pasadena, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark TRiM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 411 062

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2022 in Case R 1158/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the international trademark No 1 411 062 TRIM for all goods and services;










—


impose the costs to the defendant and, in case Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.